Author Topic: The U2 of the 2000's  (Read 10597 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline neilkap

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 173
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #135 on: October 23, 2013, 05:52:22 PM »
If I backpedalled that fast I would probably pull a hammy.

But like most others I don't need anything but my own judgment.


Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #136 on: October 23, 2013, 05:55:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

            I never said that such things proved an album was better, I simply said they were indicators of quality, and something other than ones own opinion that could indicate quality. Predictably, the U2 00 haters mob then try's to mock such things by trotting out trivial examples.

I think american idiot is the greatest album of the 21st century and the BRIT awards in 06 indicate its quality and provide back up to my theory as it beat bomb and green day beat u2 that year too in the band category. . . . You see what happened there - stick to your opinion and avoid using 'evidence' that means bugger all and you'll be a lot more credible

Offline Thunder Peel

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,549
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #137 on: October 23, 2013, 05:56:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over. 


Man, I forgot about that boring and over-hyped album. I forced myself to listen to the whole thing on a plane ride to France and wanted to throw myself out the cabin door by the time it was over.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #138 on: October 23, 2013, 05:58:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

U2 are at a level that whatever they release it will sell. Sales are no measure of artistic integrity. Looking at U2's releases objectively (and regardless of personal taste) I think it would be fair to say ATYCLB represented a sea change in U2's sound. This carried through to HDTAAB (which was basically ATYCLB but with horrific production) then on to the unholy mess that was NLOTH.

Previous to that (from TUF to POP) U2 released significantly different albums that were by and large radically different to each other. These records were daring and bold. The U2 of the last 3 records shows a band that has lost its way and lost its balls.

             That's not factual or objective. Its your individual subjective opinion. Yes, I have my own subjective opinion which says that HTDAAB is the best album released so far in the 21st century, supported the the FACT of 10 million album sales and 8 Grammy award wins.

          If the name alone were all it took, the POP album and POPMART tour would have been some of U2's biggest sellers. The name alone will not achieve massive sales.

The last sentence of my post was subjective yes. The rest of it was an objective commentary on the styles of music U2 produced pre and post 2000.



           Sorry it was all opinion and not objective, except the statement that it only takes an artist name to sell records is actually false. I can provide dozens of examples, the POP album and popmart tour being one.

Quote
But seeing as you're being purely subjective, my subjective opinion is that ATYCLB and HTDAAB and to a greater extent NLOTH are horrible U2 records. Populist, badly produced and so concerned with marketing and sales they barely know who they are. But seeing as the majority here are so obsessed with chart positions and how many units each record shifted I would have to admit by those standards they were a success. As artistic statements they were a failure. 

           Goood....., let the hate flow through you!

I think we can all agree there's no such thing as objective opinion - once we get over that intellectual hurdle we can all agree that your subjective opinion about HTDAAB means your opinion and my opinion are subjective and also totally irrelevant.

              An opinion can be supported by objective facts though.

Quote
Except it all suddenly becomes objective when it suits your argument. 

Where did I say that?

                   Can't a U2 fan name his favorite album without people telling the person that they "must not get out much" or that they are a joke?

          I'm sorry there is a group of people here that have difficulty accepting the fact that there are U2 fans out there that love 00s U2 and may even think it is the best music that has ever been made in history! I mean, that's not something that is so shocking to see on a U2 fan forum, let alone a thread about the U2 of the 2000's is it?

          I also should add that I love U2's non-album 00s material and think that an album made up of those songs would beat any Radiohead album.

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #139 on: October 23, 2013, 06:03:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I backpedalled that fast I would probably pull a hammy.

But like most others I don't need anything but my own judgment.

      Please show me where I said that a Grammy award proves a certain level of quality!

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #140 on: October 23, 2013, 06:07:38 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The greatest album of all time must be supernatural by Santana.

It not only outsold htdaab by a lot, it also won grammys in 2 languages.

Discussion over.

            I never said that such things proved an album was better, I simply said they were indicators of quality, and something other than ones own opinion that could indicate quality. Predictably, the U2 00 haters mob then try's to mock such things by trotting out trivial examples.

I think american idiot is the greatest album of the 21st century and the BRIT awards in 06 indicate its quality and provide back up to my theory as it beat bomb and green day beat u2 that year too in the band category. . . . You see what happened there - stick to your opinion and avoid using 'evidence' that means bugger all and you'll be a lot more credible

     Do you really think American Idiot is the greatest album of the century so far? I've never heard of the BRIT awards. Is this a UK awards based organization? What is their criteria for nominating artist and selecting winners? Who votes?

              I don't know anything about the BRIT awards. But, I must say that HTDAAB is the greatest album of the 21st century. The fact that it sold over 10 million copies worldwide and won 8 Grammy awards are solid indicators of the albums quality!
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 06:10:10 PM by edge245 »

Offline edge245

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 219
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #141 on: October 23, 2013, 06:20:36 PM »
Actually, I was wrong about HTDAAB winning 8 Grammy awards. It actually won 9, because Steve Lillywhite was name producer for the year for his work on the album. So, its tied with Supernatural for the most grammy award wins for a single album.

All That You Can't Leave Behind is tied for the 6th most Grammy awarded album of all time with 7 Grammy awards.

Pretty amazing, ATYCLB and HTDAAB combine for 16 Grammy award wins!


Here is a beautiful performance of one of the greatest U2 songs of all time at the Grammy awards in 2002:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

In this video, Bono states that is NO FILLER on HTDAAB. Edge states there are "no weak songs on the album" and that song for song it, may be their best album ever! Check it out.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 06:32:38 PM by edge245 »

Offline ZooClothes

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,616
  • This is where you can reach me now.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #142 on: October 23, 2013, 09:42:02 PM »
I tried to pick up this thread a while back but slammed on the brakes when I read

THE FRESH PRINCE BEAT PUBLIC ENEMY'S IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS FOR BEST RAP ALBUM GRAMMY???????

That's infinitely more egregious than Metallica losing out to Jethro Tull for best metal album.

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #143 on: October 23, 2013, 10:07:00 PM »
My favorite Bono quote about Bomb is, "The whole is not bigger than the sum of its parts, and it effing annoys me."

Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #144 on: October 23, 2013, 10:08:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I tried to pick up this thread a while back but slammed on the brakes when I read

THE FRESH PRINCE BEAT PUBLIC ENEMY'S IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS FOR BEST RAP ALBUM GRAMMY???????

That's infinitely more egregious than Metallica losing out to Jethro Tull for best metal album.

Everyone knows that at a certain point Grammys become Lifetime Achievement awards. That why Achtung lost and Bomb won.

Offline parkman

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • His love is continually teaching me how to kneel.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #145 on: October 24, 2013, 03:16:24 PM »
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #146 on: October 24, 2013, 03:21:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\


I don't think anyone (Bethere) was disrespected because he likes Bomb (lots of us like Bomb, myself included). It's just every thread Bethere hijacks seems to get a bit testy.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22,131
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #147 on: October 24, 2013, 03:24:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I tried to pick up this thread a while back but slammed on the brakes when I read

THE FRESH PRINCE BEAT PUBLIC ENEMY'S IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS FOR BEST RAP ALBUM GRAMMY???????

That's infinitely more egregious than Metallica losing out to Jethro Tull for best metal album.

Everyone knows that at a certain point Grammys become Lifetime Achievement awards. That why Achtung lost and Bomb won.

Yep they're just like the Oscars.  That's why Al Pacino had to wait until Scent of a Woman to win an Academy Award.


Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #148 on: October 24, 2013, 03:28:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

You have missed the points being made so spectacularly its hard to know where to begin.

Never mind - enough time has been wasted (and I mean literally wasted as posts have vanished) already.


Offline The Exile

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,245
  • It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Re: The U2 of the 2000's
« Reply #149 on: October 24, 2013, 03:33:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't care at all about objectivity. I'm on a U2 fan forum. Not some general music forum. I'm even in THE U2 section of THE U2 forum.

You can say grammy's/sales don't matter enough to validate an album's quality, but I certainly can say you're on the lonely side of things. As most people, do not agree. Lots of U2 fans, do not agree. It's just a number of you on these forums who proclaim it to no end.

Good for you, glad you think Santana and Green Day had better albums in the 21st century, I however, am a subjective U2 fan. It fits my taste. Define "objective"? You treat your opinions as fact and ours as subjective? Weird. Even if I don't like a U2 album, I'm not gonna treat it like trash.

Interesting how you guys bash on 'Bomb as if it's some Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber album.

U2 does NOT just sell because of teenage girls/teenage guys who are obsessed with following the culture and being trendy.
U2 sells, because people perceive an album to be good. U2 sells, because people like their music. They were in their late 40's with HTDAAB... that just doesn't sell just "'cause".

I'm thoroughly amazed.. by how not only logic seems to be thrown out the window, but respect for fellow fans, and the band we're fans of.  :-\

You have missed the points being made so spectacularly its hard to know where to begin.

Never mind - enough time has been wasted (and I mean literally wasted as posts have vanished) already.

Posts have vanished? Did anyone get booted out of here?